Investor Lawyers Blog

SEC’s New Terrorism Search Site Is the Latest Target of Fear-Mongering Tactics by Business Community

Published on: July 8, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has stirred controversy with its new online tool that allows investors to search for companies with ties to countries the State Department has designated as “state sponsors of terrorism.” The official list includes Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba.

The SEC initiated the online search site on June 25, with its Director saying that “no investor should ever have to wonder whether his or her investments or retirement savings are indirectly subsidizing a terrorist haven or genocidal state.”

However, some in the business community claim that some companies, including Baker Hughes and Immtech Pharmaceuticals, were wrongly placed on the SEC’s so-called terrorism “blacklist.” The list, they say, unfairly portrays a number of internationally-headquartered financial institutions and other corporations in a misleading, negative light and has been compiled without regard to the extent of their dealings, if any, with the five countries.

Update: Do Insurance Companies Use Scam Artists to Sell Unsuitable Annuities to the Elderly?

Published on: July 8, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Americans over 65 hold more than $15 trillion in assets and, with “Baby Boomers” soon reaching retirement age, that figure will likely balloon. As financial firms, including insurance companies, design products aimed at this pot of gold, scam artists lick their chops for a piece of the action. Unfortunately, their paths cross.

As we very recently reported, a federal judge in Hawaii dismissed a class action suit against Midland National Insurance saying that, because different sales pitches were used by different salespersons, the claims by elderly Hawaiians can not go forward. Meanwhile, regulators warn that scam artists are selling insurance products to the elderly. Thus, it appears that insurance companies can simply look the other way while con artists victimize the elderly using their annuities. [OUR FIRM PURSUES CLAIMS ONE AT A TIME TO AVOID THIS PROBLEM.]

A NY Times article today reports that a Massachusetts insurance agent became a “certified senior adviser” then advertised this and other credentials to retirees. Yet, he did not mention how easily he received that title: He paid $1,095 for a correspondence course, then took a multiple-choice exam with dumbed-down questions. The agent, and over 18,700 other applicants since 1997, passed the course.

Judge Tosses Suit by Elderly Who Claim They were Misled into Annuity Losses

Published on: July 8, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A judge in The U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled that those who lost in annuities cannot bring a class-action suit against the annuity insurer, despite potential misleading and deceptive actions by the insurance firm. [Yokoyama et al. vs. Midland National Life Insurance Company.]

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case alleged the defendant, Midland National Life Insurance Company, sold elderly Hawaiians inherently unsuitable, deceptive indexed annuity products that were designed to hide the true cost of an early contract cancellation.

The court cited two reasons it denied the class action against Midland. The first was that, whether or not Midland’s actions were misleading or deceptive, different sales pitches by different insurance salespersons were made to those purchasing the annuities, therefore the investors did not have similar claims. The second, said the judge, was that the losses were not caused by the alleged misleading actions, but by changes in the securities market.

SEC Halts Debt Offering by Amerifirst Funding, Alleging Fraud Targeting Elderly Investors

Published on: July 7, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action in a Dallas federal court against Amerifirst Funding, Inc. and Amerifirst Acceptance Corporation alleging fraud.

The SEC contends that the offering of securities, known as Secured Debt Obligations (“SDOs”), are notes purportedly secured by automobile financing receivables created or purchased by the defendants. The district court entered temporary restraining orders suspending the offering, freezing the defendants’ assets and requiring an accounting and repatriation of assets.

The court also appointed a receiver to secure assets for investors, and ordered defendants to preserve documents and submit to expedited discovery. The SEC says the ruling has frozen the assets of the investment firm, which it accused of running a scam that targeted senior citizens, mostly in Texas and Florida, since early 2006.

While Former Merrill Lynch & Co. Stockbroker is Found Guilty of Witness Tampering, Seven Other Defendants are Acquitted in “Squawk Box” Securities Fraud Case Involving A.B. Watley Employees

Published on: July 7, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a jury issued its verdict in the “squawk box” front running case. Seven people were acquitted of securities fraud, while Timothy O’Connell, a former Merrill Lynch & Co. stockbroker was found guilty of making false statements and of witness tampering. The judge, however, declared a mistrial for the one remaining conspiracy count to commit securities fraud against O’Connell. He faces up to 15 years in prison for the convictions, and prosecutors have announced that they will retry the conspiracy charge.

According to prosecutors, O’Connell, and the two other broker defendants, David Ghysels-a former Lehman Brothers broker-and Kenneth Mahaffy-a former Merrill Lynch & Co. brokers, purposely placed off-the-hook phones that were active next to internal speaker systems at their firms.

The purpose of doing this was to let a number of former A.B. Watley employees, including ex-president Robert Malin, former proprietary trading supervisor Keevan Leonard, former compliance director Linus Nwaigwe, and former CEO Michael Picone, listen in while large orders about to be made by institutional clients were broadcast over the boxes.

Want to Make Big Bucks Without Responsibility? Become a Corporate Director

Published on: July 5, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Texas judge dismissed a shareholder class action against the directors of energy firm TXU, holding that, under Texas law, shareholders of a company can not sue that company’s directors. Thus, shareholders can only sue the company itself, which is really suing themselves. Meanwhile, the company can sue the board members but, since the board members would decide that, what is the likelihood? (An arcane action known as a shareholders derivative suit can be filed by the shareholders, if they can demonstrate the board should have initiated the action – against themselves – but did not.)

The lawsuit filed by the TXU shareholders claimed the directors violated their fiduciary duty in agreeing to acquisition of TXU by a private equity firm for $45 billion paid to the shareholders. Were the shareholders cheated? We will never know, will we, because the suit was dismissed, meaning that these and other shareholders can’t sue a company’s directors – at least not in Texas.

If you learn of job openings for Corporate Directors, apply fast – and give me a call!

Follow Up: North Carolina Treasurer Urges Elimination of Brokerage Firms Voting of Client Shares

Published on: July 5, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

On June 11, 2007, we published an article entitled “Should Brokerage Firms Continue to Vote Their Clients’ Shares without Permission, Including for Corporate Directors?” State Treasurer Richard Moore of North Carolina has recently answered that question with a resounding “No!”

In a statement, Moore contends that allowing such votes thwarts corporate reform and prevents shareholders of a company from having adequate representation in director elections. Moore is also a board member of NYSE Regulation and called on SEC to approve an NYSE proposal that would change its Rule 452 to eliminate broker voting in all director elections.

Under the NYSE’s current rule, brokers may vote on “routine” proposals if the beneficial owner of the stock has not provided specific voting instructions to the broker at least 10 days before a scheduled meeting. The proposed change would end all voting of customer shares for directors by categorizing all such elections as “non-routine.”

SEC Declines to Exempt From Broker Dealer Registration A Consulting Firm Which Raises Capital For Small Businesses

Published on: July 4, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Hallmark Capital Corporation sought a “No Action” letter from the SEC’s Division of Market Regulation seeking it be given an exemption from registration as a broker-dealer (securities firm).

Hallmark states that it serves small businesses as a financial consultant, to assist such business with capital raising and other matters. It informs clients and potential clients it is not a broker-dealer, does not act as an agent for the client company and does not effect transactions for the account of others. The company also does not offer to sell securities to or solicit investment funds from the general investing public.

More specifically, its CEO stated that Hallmark assists small businesses with revenues under $25 million with their debt and equity capital needs, including preparing confidential information summaries describing the business, identifying broker-dealer firms that might work with these companies and arranging meetings for engaging broker-dealers to raise capital. It then has control over significant aspects of any securities transactions.

SEC Alleges that a Hedge Fund, Its Owner and Its Chief Trader Illegally Earned $57 Million in a Late-Trading Scam.

Published on: July 4, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in a New York Federal Court contending that Simpson Capital Management Inc., its owner and its head trader entered into late-trades in hundreds of mutual funds, defrauding the funds and their shareholders of approximately $57 million.

The SEC claims that the defendants placed more than 10,000 unlawful mutual fund trade orders after the market closed, enabling them to take advantage of knowledge of after-market events while receiving the price previously established that day as the fund’s closing net asset value. Simpson Capital is the investment adviser to two hedge funds, Simpson Partners L.P. and Simpson Offshore Ltd.

The SEC further charged that the firm’s owner, who was also an investor in the Simpson Funds, “personally earned at least $19 million in fees and profits” as a result of the fraudulent transactions, adding that the head trader “received more than $996,000 in salary and bonuses during the late trading scheme.” The SEC is asking the court to order permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

U.S. Treasury Official Brags of Close Ties to Wall Street in Advancing Support of the “Race to the Bottom” in Compliance Laws

Published on: July 3, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Treasury Secretary announced the second stage of its “capital markets competitiveness plan” devoted to efforts to “modernize the structure” of the regulatory system for all U.S. financial services providers. The announcement was made before the New York Stock Exchange’s conference on deals and deal-making, hosted by the Wall Street Journal.

As the securities industry is rapidly being globalized, Wall Street insists it can not compete with loose regulations elsewhere in the world unless U.S. standards for reporting, fraud and other wrongdoing are relaxed. Frenzied cries to federal and state officials hype this theme as if the “sky is falling.” Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats, including candidates for both state and federal office, are taking the bait. Or, perhaps, these candidates know that many of the largest campaign donors around are found on Wall Street.

The fear mongering about losing the battle for listing shares has even invaded the courts as observers, including the SEC, lobby even the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that our nation is on the brink of disaster since it can not compete with foreign markets with almost no oversight.